From: "David Cantrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > If they are allowing someone to use their machine to attack me, then > > *they* > > > are attacking me. Not securing their own box is a sin of ommission as > > > opposed to a sin of commission, so I'll let them off with a sound flaming > > > instead of cutting their balls off. Being incapable of securing their own > > > box is not an admissible defence. > > This'll be a different David Cantrell from the one that was opposing the > > American's pursuit of Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan on (void) then... > > No. If you were to make the bogus comparison you imply, then you would > see that that nice Mr. Bush should in fact have written nasty emails to > his Afghan opposite number, instead of ordering the murder of yet more > innocents.
Ooooops! Seems we're a bit touchy, in spite of the smiley and the note about humourous one-liners rather than serious debate (both snipped from the above). Apologies all for lighting the red touchpaper! Andrew.
